Hacker News Reader

Comment by labster | Hacker News Reader

So you're telling me that government money, where everyone gets a say in policy through republican institutions, is worse than a system where the most wealthy users get more control of the currency. Um, okay. I guess the oligarchy is more explicit in the cryptocurrency.

View on HN

If you really think you have a say in monetary policy, I suggest you read Barofsky's Bailout.

You have a say in it in principle. In contrast, you have in principle no say what others do with their private property. That's the difference, and it's an important one.

It's interesting how so many people want government to be run like a business while hating it most when it runs like a business. Business is opaque, secretive, with no oversight and loyalty only to the bottom line. Well run government institutions are none of these things.

You can't control what miners do, sure. But you can fork code that changes the game for them.

Contrary to all the noise, Bitcoin does not need commercial miners. They are parasites. Allowing them to dominate mining was a serious bug. It's users who should be mining.

I mined a little in the early days, but it kept my CPU pinned into the red and frankly all the people online patting themselves on the back on the size of their mining operation were offputting. I'm interested in cryptocurrencies because of their potential to liberate the mass of people from financial bullying by governments and corporations, not as a speculative vehicle to easy riches.

This will seem pointlessly ideological to most people, but I'm struck by the fact that the bitcoin blockchain is held up as 'proof of work.' There's no work involved besides that to understand the system initially and any code contributions made to the source tree. The actual calculation is carried out by machine. So mining is basically a game for capitalists to invest in industrial hash table production. People who learn about it later and comprehend it in full but don't have any large sums of capital to invest in mining equipment or as a speculative investment don't really derive much benefit from it.

Don't get the idea that I consider it a bad thing because of this - its mere existence speaks to the fact that we've run out of accessible natural frontiers where the curious might stumble upon a fortune, and so we are forced to invent them.

It's not about need. If it is profitable to mine, professional miners will exist. You can't create an incentive structure and then call it a "bug" when somebody optimizes for it.

So you can create a disincentive for non-user mining.

What would be the downside?

This is supposed to be a distributed system.

What kind of discouragement do you have in mind?

One could limit share of hash power. Perhaps by IP address. Or through blockchain links to previously-solved blocks.

The Tor Network, for example, has mechanisms for excluding bad participants. There's the bad exit flag, for relays that snoop traffic. Relays that harvest onion hostnames get banned. So do relays that attempt traffic analysis.

There's even a policy of discouraging new relays in commonly-used AS. There's no exclusion mechanism. But I don't see why there couldn't be, if there were too much concentration.

Edit: See https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/ReportingB...

Although I still see it as a difference, I think it's good to remember you DO have a say in 'private property' .... there's nothing magical or natural about private property. Private property is whatever society/the government says it is.

It’s not really government money though, is it? It’s bank money.

I don't think that it's necessarily the wealthiest users. There could be a fork with lots of interest, no particularly wealthy users, and no non-user miners. One could probably impose the "no non-user miners" rule in code.

But even then, I prefer it, because with enough interest, it can always be forked. And that's much easier than changing governmental monitary policy. That is clearly dominated by the wealthy.

Just download a mining program and run it on your computer. Voilà, you now have "a say" that is exactly equivalent to your say in the policy of republican institutions.

Don't be silly, that's like saying that incorporating a one-person business automatically puts you on-par with the lobbying power of major industries.

No, it's as silly as suggesting that a single voter has any say what so ever in the policies of republican institutions.

1 vote for a poor person = 1 vote for a rich person (ideally). In mining, the more mining power you have, the more "say" you have. One stays constant, the other scales. Don't you think that is an important distinction?

In a way it's a pretty naive view. The rich person will have more influence over other people that will give him effectively more than 1 vote.

OP's point is the big mining rig will have more influence than the numpty rig one boots up on their laptop.

Sure, each has one vote.

But it's not your one vote that makes any difference, It's how many votes you can influence. And that's all about privilege and money. Campaign funding. Lobbying.

So you're saying, cryptocurrency and fiat currency are the same, because you don't have a meaningful say in either one, unless you have a lot of money. Yes. True.

>where everyone gets a say in policy through republican institutions

You clearly have no idea how money is "created" or how the Federal Reserve works.

In the specific case of the united states, the money is controlled by the Federal Reserve which is a private bank.

Most private banks aren't established by an act of Congress and run by people appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

No, but in order to get access to the Fed, the bank link systems and so on and so forth, they need to get government approval.

In order to be bailed out, which is a necessity, they even need contacts as high up as the president.

And even that is ignoring the long history of the government making specific laws specifically to benefit or destroy a single bank.

Nope, no government role here at all. This division simply results in privatizing the profits, nationalizing the losses in trade for having politicians name the owners.

it is if you want to be a reserve bank of course, which is why anyone wants to have a bank in the first place.

> the Federal Reserve which is a private bank

Not true. Literally by design actually. This is a common misconception about Central Banks and it's one the US system makes worse by being explicitly public but functioning extraordinarily similarly to a private company.

This particular structure was actually a compromise between various other possible implementations.

But seriously, it's not a private bank. Repeating that just makes you looking like you get your information from websites that put their titles in all-caps and have dodgy grammar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com